(anniversary of the publication of
The Origin of the Species of Charles Darwin)
I do not agree with some of
its conclusions, but its questions are apt.
found at http://www.bio.net/hypermail/pop-bio/pop-bio.199708/0009.html
Congratulations! You have just made an observation that Rush Limbaugh keeps missing. Environmental scientists are not bleeding-heart liberals. Pseudo-environmentalists are many, but the same liberals who support environmental agendas as a hip, fashion statement demonstrate by their support of liberal immigration policy that they are intellectually incapable of fathoming the communications from the scientists regarding the effects of human population growth on our finite ecosystems. Environmental scientists practice the perception of Himler,(sic) who according to the author of “The History of the SS”, transplanted only two Germans in Poland for every three Poles who were eliminated from their properties, so that there would be room for population growth. A good example of how environmental scientists practice their trade was a project to save a population of White-Tail Deer from starvation a few years ago in South Florida. Due to unusually heavy rains, marsh lands in Everglades National Park were flooded to the extent that much of the natural diet of the deer was inaccessible. The scientists calculated that
unless about 500 deer were removed from the environment that several thousand would die from malnutrition. And so, with the assistance of the
State Wildlife Management personnel, they conducted a population adjustment on the herd. The “Miami Herald” published a story on the event which included a provocative photo, not unlike a scene from the movie “Apocalypse Now”. The photo featured Park Rangers flying over the Glades in a helicopter while shooting deer with M-16 assault rifles. Members of Jacques Cousteau’s Pet Baby-Fur-Seal Club who expected to see a picture of Bambi being rescued by a Forest Ranger may not have been amused. Of course those who have developed an appreciation for conspiracy theories might surmise that the REAL reason for the slaughter was a shortage of venison stock needed to entertain the appetites of the Corporate Elite, who enjoy lodging at Mandalay Four Seasons Hotels, where all breakfast sausage served is made of pure venison. So are environmental scientists catching a bad wrap? Sure they knowingly influence environments in such a way that will predictably result in the suffering and premature death of large populations of human beings. At least, their effort is intended to prevent even greater suffering of our species. As cold and clinical as they appear to behave, are they any more inhumane than the political leader who declares war on another nation, or a celebrated military commander who manages a deliberate effort to kill people?
Yes indeed; environmental scientists are even more inhumane because these Ice Men Cummeth and wrench from us our most sacred pipe dream. They
compromise our favorite hallucination by suggesting that we are as mortal and vulnerable to the laws of physics as is any other animal.
At least, political leaders and military commanders titillate our fantasies with surrealistic notions with which we rationalize why we kill. In Vietnam, the English and French may have held the territory for control of
its mineral wealth, but not us. No siree’ Bob; our boys were fighting to protect the political rights of Oriental rice farmers. When Sadam Hussein invaded Kuwait, obviously for control of their oil-fields, we never considered for a moment that he might jack up the price of oil a couple bucks a barrel. We annihilated his grossly inferior army because God doesn’t like bullies. It was the only moral thing to do. The reason that environmental scientists are so disliked, is because whenever we imagine reasons to worship ourselves as Gods, they wake us up and remind us that we are but beasts. Now that’s inhumane